Remix.run Logo
stego-tech 7 hours ago

I suspect this is more of a warning shot to others attempting the same playbook ("Singapore-washing", as I've heard folks call it): the state is watching, and shifting geopolitics means it's in their interest to retain successful talent and entities at home rather than let opposition have them.

If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way of pushback, so China must feel very confident in its position to use such tactics.

aesch 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know if America has done anything quite like this. The example I'm looking for is where a company starts in the US but leaves and incorporates outside the US and then the US attempts to block acquisition by a foreign company. Also, the enforcement mechanism while vague seems un-American. America might tax the company upon exit but it wouldn't hold the founders hostage in America. If you have examples I'd be curious.

DontBreakAlex 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't need to incorporate in the US for this to happen to you. You should look up what happened to Marc Lasus after he founded Gemplus (spoiler, he's on social security while the company the CIA stole from him has $3b revenue) or how Frédéric Pierucci was taken hostage to force the sale of France's nuclear reactors to General Electric. I assume the US does this to all the other countries too.

justinclift 4 hours ago | parent [-]

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci#Im...

This is relevant too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47765974

capitalhilbilly 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Being stopped that late is a bit different than the US AFAIK, but there is certainly the possibility of being stopped from work and (depending how you react) prevented from leaving the US for purely economic inventions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

I find it notable that the US' actual checks on government have worked against expanding the secrecy act further into economic protectionism for favored industries, etc.

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
vkou 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US doesn't need to do 'something like this', they can just bar you from the global financial system if they don't like you. [1]

Or just order another country to snatch you up.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou

She was arrested, and was being extradited from Canada into the United States... Because her Chinese company was doing business with Iran.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout

This chap was arrested in Thailand, extradited, and did a decade in a US prison because he had the audacity of selling weapons from Russia to Colombia. I'm not sure how exactly US law is of any relevance to such transactions...

---

[1] Or, since 2025, just shoot a missile at your boat, with an option for a follow-up salvo if there any survivors. Strangely enough, everyone who has managed to survive both the initial attack, and the double-tap has so far been repatriated to their countries of origin, with no charges filed by the US.

cermicelli 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

US has blocked merges of companies especially with Chinese and other non western companies. Including Japan, India etc.

For instance US Steel acquisition by Nippon Steel(japanese) is one such example. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vz83pg9eo

More examples,

Ant Group(chinese) tried to buy MoneyGram (blocked in 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/us-blocks-moneygram...

Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics tried buying Lumileds, blocked again by US. Also Chinese ofc.

Broadcom and Qualcomm deal was also blocked, Broadcom was then Singapore based in process of moving to US I believe... (very sus happened in 2018 too, someone didn't pay Donald enough)

https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/india-inc-and-the-cfius-nati... Indian company forced to divest from US tech firm... (2013)

I am certain there must be European examples as well but smaller ofc, AI companies are over valued these days, most acquisitions were never this big in the olden days of pre 2020s...

I know for a fact that most folks don't want to invest in US for this reason other than in public equities or bonds ofc. Private foreign investment in US has been high only due to European pensions and Middle-eastern money going into it.

I don't know about how fair, far, or right it was compared to these were, detaining founders is also not confirmed, but sure let's assume it's true still...

Only difference in US is perhaps foreign folks can sue over it. Sometimes, if they are lucky and if the deal is worth it.

I find it strange people of HN being based in US can be so ill informed of what their country, does to foreign companies but be mad about things foreign companies do to them?

I mean sure rest(96%) of the world doesn't really exist, it's but a myth or a land the better folks of US only want to take value when needed?

Unsure what this comment meant, this has happened before as well btw, these are just post 2010s examples because they are relevant. Russians and US used to do this too, India and US were worse of pre-2000s, Japan and US were at their throats in 1980s, in terms of trade and acquisition...

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
rzerowan 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Famously back in the day Grindr , which had a plot point in the Silicon Valley series . Probably more obscure ones that havent been heard of outside software in the Hard tech space like MotorSich (Ukranian) was being courted by Chinese investment got blocked due to US pressure. And very recently the whole TikTok fiasco.

strangegecko 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What examples do you have of the US government doing to CEOs what has happened to people like Jack Ma and many other public figures?

For China, there are so many examples of people doing 180s and being full of contrition after those interventions, it's hard to imagine anything but severe intimidation or worse happening behind closed doors.

axus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm totally fine with what-about-ism here; making China a better place to live and do business is out of my jurisdiction and doesn't help me, encouraging the USA to do better will.

reissbaker 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You've been all over this this thread responding with the same whataboutist comments claiming America does the same thing. And yet, I'm pretty sure America hasn't held American citizens hostage in order to force them to unwind a sale of a foreign company they founded to a different foreign company.

maxglute 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

US absolutely has exit bans on people who break/is being investigated for national security and export control laws, which is what Manus did. Except Americans don't call it hostage taking when they do it.

JPKab 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Please cite an example.

maxglute 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure if serious, you think US doesn't make people surrender passports for NSL investigations, i.e. Supermicro trio surrendered their passports.

bit-anarchist 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Not comparable. The Supermicro trio wasn't trapped for trying to sell a company to China.

maxglute 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Directly comparable, trying to circumvent export controls. One is chips other is algo.

jwitthuhn 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Could you cite the specific law that makes it illegal for someone to export their thoughts?

bit-anarchist 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As another comment mentioned, comparing "employees trying to selling GPUs to an unauthrorized country" and "CEOs selling a company built on national resources to an outside country" is spherical cows levels of comparison.

maxglute 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Another wrong comment doesn't make being wrong less wrong. CEOs/persons trying to sell controlled technology unauthorized for export by origin country. They are direct legal analogs.

bit-anarchist 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Wrong how? It is your comment that is missing the point. The contention isn't whether USA has export control (you are the one who brought it up), it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners.

Are you trying to push a red herring?

8note 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners.

notably china isnt doing this either: they are barring exit, not detaining, and the reason for barring exit was not reported, so its a stretch to say that its to prevent the sale of the company overseas.

The US:

- makes broad claims of jurisdiction - has export control, which is listed in the article as a potential reason for blocking the sale, and - restricts exit from the country when it wants to make sure certain people are available to chat

I dont see whats so exciting about pushing on this specific case. There's an error of, "who's tried to export controlled IP by selling their company to a foreign adversary?"

I dont see what's so exciting about this case that the US definitely absolutely wouldnt take a pretty similar approach to china - bring the CEOs to testify before congress and keep them in the country til the government is satisfied. What's so out of the ordinary that makes this interesting? This is the stuff that goes into work compliance courses.

you might instead want to answer which high tech defense contractor for the US has successfully been bought out by say, iran, china, north korea, or russia, that the US has given the OK on?

I expect there's a lack of data either way. It doesnt come up because people generally move their companies to the US, not out

why is this the hill to die on?

maxglute 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

US export controls prevent companies from selling controlled tech. If US companies tried o circumvent then they would absolutely be denied, if they did secretly anyway, against, the law of course they'll likely have passport surrendered, i.e. exit ban if flight risk.

Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was full blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export controls after PRC closed loopholes and politely signalled them to stop, which they didn't, i.e. they broke actual export control laws. Like Manus didn't try to sell, they fucking sold, sign and dotted, despite being told not to, because its against export control laws.

Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense. Americans getting exit banned for selling controlled hardware is LESS serious then what Manus tried to do, i.e. lesser (relative) export control crimes in US getting same treatment.

burntbridge 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Dan Duggan

mothballed 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Philip Agee

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
stego-tech 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're right. To my knowledge, we don't hold citizens hostage to force them to unwind the sale of a foreign company they smuggled out of America into another country to a different foreign company.

But you cannot seriously hold America up as blameless when we've wielded our economy as a cudgel against anyone we remotely disagree with (sanctions against Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc; tariffs against everybody), have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice, regularly park our navy off foreign shores to coerce desired outcomes, and dronestrike civilians as a final saber-rattling before full-fledged conflict.

The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell, take a look beyond the past thirty years of history and there's a glut of incidents where empires used this sort of leverage to achieve outcomes - including the United States! We've traded political prisoners to achieve negotiated outcomes repeatedly, we just use different words to make ourselves feel better about it. We've propped up entire puppet states to ensure American corporate interests were served instead!

Like, holy shit, why do I have to teach you naysayers what's already outlined in history books just because you can't be bothered to do the assigned reading?

nerdsniper 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just last year the USA de-banked (from EU banks) EU citizens who are International Criminal Court officials for "opening preliminary investigations against Israeli personnel". The USA wields incredible power over financial interactions.

stego-tech 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

THANK YOU, I knew I was overlooking a recent example in favor of historical ones!

Alive-in-2025 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Trump is making it worse, but there had been examples of bad behavior. Now the US is completely uncontrolled. I can't say we wouldn't do something like happened here (trying to stop a foreign company from selling stuff or developing stuff) if it was doing something significant about weapons or ai.

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of the course the USA does it. Obama was totally ruthless with such economic warfare, including on the US usual lackeys. See for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Pierucci

thrownthatway 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

While I don’t agree with your tone, and I’m sure an unbiased reading of history also wouldn’t agree with your tone…

Who would you rather be world police? One or more of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia?

Levitz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think anyone is holding the US as blameless or perfect, but it gets exhausting to see Chinese propaganda every single time anything like this happens.

When the US does something reprehensible, people rarely come up in droves going on and about China's enablement of the North Korean regime or the many abuses enacted on its population, but every single time the US does anything we had to read a whole lot on how "at least China doesn't invade countries" as if the prime reason as to why China doesn't tend to involve itself militarily isn't precisely American hegemony. The rate at which the country is portrayed as some paragon of human rights, equality and peacefulness is either insane, deluded, or paid for.

RobertoG 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You have to be joking.

The media is almost daily full of China scares. Also, the comments here are not talking about who started this war, with the GPU sanctions and the arrest of the daughter of Huawei's founder.

Does it mean the Chinese are the good guys? No, because there are not good guys, but there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.

bit-anarchist 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The media is almost daily full of China scares

That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?

> there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.

Ask the Taiwanese about it. Or most countries dealing with border disputes with the PRC.

Daishiman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> That gets repeated a lot. Is there any source?

Have you not been reading The Economist for the past 20 years of the WSJ since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch? They've been predicting the downlfall of China every other month.

Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you point to this month's article then so we have a sample?

Levitz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>but there is certainly a side that is extremely aggressive an can't conceive that others can have their own interests. And it's not the Chinese.

It's not the Chinese? You sure? There's probably nobody more economically aggressive in the planet and they just threw a hissy fit at the EU the other day for doing something they've been doing since forever.

I care not for "the media", I care that I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of people trying to justify this in this very comment section. I'm sure western media is not favorable to Chinese interests, I'd be utterly baffled if Chinese media was favorable to western interests. I do not expect public sentiment to follow a party line because we are better than that, but I do expect a certain reticence to go all out and justify opposition in intellectually rotten ways.

stickfigure 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You're right.

You should have just left it at that.

nandomrumber 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> have military bases scattered around the world to invade anyone at a moment's notice

I wonder how that came about?

What’s that fence analogy called?

Chester-what?

wewtyflakes 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think people are frustrated with the firehose of whataboutism rather than disagreeing with you with the idea that things are not perfect.

stego-tech 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, the whataboutism is a critical tool in negating propaganda. Rather than focus on the reprehensibility of anyone using threats of violence like this to force specific outcomes favorable to domestic policy, everyone is instead hung up on the fact China did this.

Whataboutism, used effectively, is meant to draw parallels rather than excuse behavior. Fuck China for what it's doing here, but also fuck the countries and entities who have used similar tactics in the past to great effect. Don't just conveniently put on blinders for what's happening/happened at home all because the government-labelled "baddie" did it too.

boc 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Whataboutism, used effectively, is designed to change the subject and stop detailed exploration of the topic at hand. Which is what you're doing in this thread. We don't need to turn a news-relevant thread specifically about the CCP into a thread relitigating decades of American government and business behavior. You can make a separate submission to discuss the US if you'd like.

intended 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell,

There is a massive difference in degree and kind here. Mixing them up at this level is spherical cow territory.